Dear Mr. Editor, in noticing, through the medium of your work, the articles of the record on the “Plymouth Brethren” as they are now reprinted and sent forth in a more permanent form, it is my intention to confine myself mainly to remarking on the untenable doctrinal positions assumed by the editor in this controversy. I had not seen all the papers, in their more fugitive character, in the newspaper, which accounts for the lateness of this attempt to reply
The importance, as to truth, of the issues at stake can hardly be over-estimated: which is my only ground for taking up my pen.
I shall pass over in silence all that takes the shape of mere attack; since whether deserved or understood on the part of those against whom it is directed, it may be left to the judgment of the Lord, and thus in due time find its own place. But the truth or error contained in these extraordinary articles is of permanent and universal importance; and I confess that their perusal has deepened in my mind the sense of that importance, and at the same time has produced a more sorrowful impression with regard to those whose sentiments they are supposed to represent than I was prepared to entertain before.
In the outset, I may be allowed to say, it is in itself a fact of ominous import that a Protestant and an Evangelical should abandon the Scriptures as the standard of appeal, in a controversy in which Scripture doctrines are avowedly in question, and which the writer himself affirms to be of the most fundamental kind. But in these articles there is the deliberate transfer of the question of truth or error, in fundamental doctrines, from the Scriptures, to creeds and formularies and the endless tomes of orthodox divines. Opinions in these forms, and even truth itself, may be more or less accurately stated, and as such may challenge from me as a Christian man a modified assent: but this is not the question. It is, by what authority is truth or error regarding doctrines of Scripture to be settled? Is it by the writings of men or by the word of God? It is not enough (for the mind that has ever felt the question, “What is truth?” of sufficient importance to rouse it to thought and inquire) to be curtly told, in the words of the Editor of the Record, “The question has been argued long ago, and long ago conclusively settled;” and then to be rudely challenged “to take up the works of any systematic divine, or any one of the hundreds of works on justification by faith and to answer that.” And then as if this shock were not enough, to be told that when I have done that my respondent will “cut me out as much work as will last me my lifetime at least.” Now I do not want a lifetime work of this thriftless kind. I am an old man, and to me especially “vita brevis est, ars est longa.” I want a shorter and surer answer to my question. I have read systematic divinity to some extent, and I have no desire to finish life in attempting to thread its mazes, or to reconcile its contradictions. The Bishop of Ossory's book “on the Nature and Effects of Faith,” which the Editor of the Record thinks there is none like, may be a very good book; and some people think the same of Bishop Warburton's book “on the Divine Legation of Moses.” But before I am entitled to a proof from Scripture that the sanctions of the law of Moses are limited to this world, and that its rewards and punishments are bounded by this life, am I to be driven to the hard necessity “to handle the arguments of that work, and print my reply to it?” And then, as a recompense for my pains, this Editor forsooth “will promise me to do his duty faithfully as a reviewer, and say whether I have succeeded or failed in my effort?” And what then?
Is this seriousness? or is it trifling—the most arrant and indefensible trifling with truth and souls? I will not ask him, in his own language, if it is a specimen of “his dishonest tactics,” or say anything about his deluded followers. What has been demanded of him is, the truth and testimony of Scripture upon the most definitely asserted and fundamental character of Christ's work, and of a believer's position before God through that work; and this, in the manner already adverted to, he was refused. Let no one be deceived. This determination to avoid the ground of Scripture is not accidental. Much less is it a proof of confidence, on the part of the Editor of the Record, that its testimony is so abundantly in favor of his doctrine that there is no need of proof. It may be assumed as an axiom that no professedly Christian controversialist ever foregoes the authority of Scripture, or even its seeming authority, so long as there is a single text that can be quoted against his opponent and in favor of himself. It is right that it should be so. The importance of the truth and allegiance to it demands that it should be so. The sanction of Scripture throws too much weight into the scale of him who has it, ever to allow that it should be lightly given up; not to say that it is of the worst possible moral effect to accustom people to acquiesce in anything short of it. Even Rome herself, little as she may feel bound by the authority of Scripture, never fails to press into her service in her missives every text of Scripture that, either in sense or sound, seems to make for her cause.
In the next place the Editor of the Record has done his utmost to prevent a calm and godly consideration of the doctrines he has denounced by attempting to prejudice the question at issue, after the example of Rome, by attributing to those against whom he is writing every kind of doctrine and absurdity which they abhor. For example, he says, in page 11 of his pamphlet, “J. N. D.'s doctrine of justification is bald and bare Socinianism.” I shall attempt no refutation of this unjust, unfounded calumny, beyond placing before my reader what that doctrine is in a quotation from the very paper which the Editor says he has so laboriously studied, and from which he has at such pains brought together his extracts in order not to misrepresent Mr. Darby's sentiments. “Two systems are in presence. One [the Record's] is that we are all under law Christians and all men; that the fulfillment of the law alone is righteousness: that in vain is propitiation made that we may be forgiven. That is not the means of being justified. In order to this Christ has kept the law in our stead, and then died for our sins; but that His death is the means of pardon, but not of justification.”
“The other [Mr. Darby's] is that we believers are not under law, but under grace—that Christ, while perfect under law in His own Person, did not keep it to make good our defects under it, or give us legal righteousness or justification by it—that He died for our sins and thus put them away; but that we are viewed as also being dead with Him, and no longer in the flesh at all, to which the law applied, but stand as risen in the presence of God, in the position in which He stands with all the value of His work upon us, and accepted in His person, according to His acceptance now that He is risen. That this is measured by His having perfectly glorified God in His work, and hence is glorified in and with God in heaven; and that this is our title to be in heaven and glory in due time with Him—conformed to His image—the first-born among many brethren.”
I leave the Editor to point out, in this statement of the question, and in its subsequent arguing out from Scripture, “the bald and bare Socinianism” it contains, or to retire ashamed from a contest which demands such dishonest tactics. Meanwhile I re-quote from him a passage from Hooker which he has adduced in opposition to the doctrine he condemns. Speaking of the believer's position as accepted in the beloved, Hooker says, “Shall I say [he is] more perfectly righteous than if he had fulfilled the whole law? I must take heed what I say; but the Apostle saith, t God made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.' Such are we in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God Himself.” Here is nothing about Christ's law-keeping as the ground of our righteousness; neither is there the thought that the believer is under the law himself; much less the impious (if it were not the ignorant) declaration, that the Lord's obedience unto death was restricted to law-keeping, and that it could only be estimated by the standard of the law. What Hooker implies is, that through redemption the believer is more perfectly righteous than if he had fulfilled the whole law. But how is this? If the Scripture is allowed to speak, on the simplest possible grounds; consequently Hooker thinks it enough to quote the passage in proof of his position— “God made Him to be sin for us [not that He kept the law for us], that we might be made the righteousness of God [not through His law-keeping for us, but] in Him.” And his conclusion is just. “Such are we in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God Himself.” It is the exact expression of Scripture (1 John 17) “As He is, καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστι [not as He was], so are we in this world.” The ground of our righteousness is that Christ was made sin for us; the position into which we are brought by this is that we are made the righteousness of God in Him. The full result before God of this is, that “as He is, so are we in this world;” or in Hooker's language, such are we in the sight of God the Father, as in the very Son of God Himself. I need not descend from this to say that, if the believer is “more perfectly righteous than if he had kept the whole law himself,” there is an end of law as the measure of his righteousness, whether kept by Christ, or by himself, to this end. And the absurdity of his being still under the law is, that in order to this, Christ Himself must be brought (though in heaven) again under the law. For “as He is, so are we in this world.” The difficulty of allowing this, and Its perfect compatibility with entire obedience to the will of Christ, lies not in the doctrine as thus stated by Hooker and the Scripture, but in that system which the Editor of the Record undertakes to defend, and which has neither Scripture nor consistency to commend it.
Though I have quoted this passage from Hooker, as the Editor's authority to prove what it expressly denies, it is not my intention to pursue the question as it is presented in the works of systematic divines, and in the formularies of the Church of England, and in the various symbols of the Reformed Churches. I have not sufficient acquaintance with them for that, even if it were desirable; and I have not sufficient respect for them as authorities to induce me to enter on a more accurate study of them. There is no difficulty in believing that conflicting and inconsistent statements may be easily extracted from so heterogeneous a mass, since the Church of England has been described as having a Calvinistic creed, a Popish liturgy, and an Armenian clergy.
The Editor of the Record in page 6 of his pamphlet excuses himself from the necessity of presenting any farther testimony from Scripture on the plea that Mr. Darby has dealt unfairly with what he had already adduced. These are his words: “J. N. D. complains again and again, that we have quoted no Scripture. We will give our readers a sample of the way in which he deals with so much of Scripture as we did interweave with our argument.” He then complains that the passage in his pamphlet, here alluded to, was quoted by Mr. Darby with certain omissions, which the Editor has indicated by blanks.
Now in this passage, brief as it is, the writer has been guilty of a double sophism. In the first place he assumes in his premises the question at issue; and in the next place presents that which does not follow as his conclusion. I will explain: for this is no logomachy. The writer says, “The essence of the glorious Gospel lies in this that the Lord Jesus not only bore our penalty, but did our work:” i.e., according to his argument He kept the law for us. But this is just the point which was demanded to be proved. This is the first sophism (there is no question about the Lord Jesus having borne our penalty). But in the passages of Scripture which he says he interwove in his argument, there is no ground for his conclusion, viz., “that this whole work [' his obedience unto death' comes in in the passages of Scripture I shall quote] is called in the Scriptures and proclaimed in the Gospel as the righteousness of God.” The first of the texts, which the Editor says were omitted, is Gal. 3:1313Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Here, at any rate, there is nothing about Christ's keeping the law instead of us, but bearing its curse; and redemption from the curse of the law, as regarded those who were under it, is expressly declared to be by His being made a curse for them. The result to the Gentiles is added in the next verse: “that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.” It is plain that when the apostle says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,” he is speaking of Jews, in distinction from Gentiles, who are brought in by name in the next verse; nor do I feel disposed, at the Editor's pleasure, to sacrifice the consistency of the apostle's argument. In sum, then, redemption, whether for Jew or Gentile, is expressly declared to be by Christ's death—by the cross—by His hanging on a tree. But neither is it said that “this is God's righteousness,” as the Editor has affirmed; though, as Scripture abundantly shows, it is the ground of it. (See especially Rom. 3:2626To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:26).) This first “proof-text,” then, of the Editor's does not “flatly contradict [but affirms] what Mr. Darby is teaching.” The second text is Phil. 2:88And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:8): “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Here again there is nothing about law-keeping, but Christ's obedience unto death: But the law does not demand the death of one who perfectly fulfills its requisitions; so that something infinitely higher than vicarious law-keeping is in question. But neither does this Scripture proclaim it as the righteousness of God, nor flatly contradict what Mr. Darby is teaching. The last passage is Isa. 42:2121The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable. (Isaiah 42:21): “He will magnify the law and make it honorable.” Here there is no difficulty; and certainly no contradiction to Mr. Darby's teaching, as the following passage from his letter, which the Editor is reviewing, will abundantly show: “I hold the maintenance of the law, in its true and highest character, to be of the deepest importance, and necessary to a right and full apprehension of divine teaching. It is the abstract perfection of a creature, loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves; and this Christ most truly did in all He did. All the moral claims and teachings of the law and prophets, as the Lord declares, hang upon it.” But in this last “proof-text” of the Editor's there is no contradiction to Mr. Darby's teaching, as we have seen; nor is there in it the declaration that it is “the righteousness of God,” which was to be proved. And herein is the Editor's second sophism. He says “We beg to call the reader's strict attention to the way in which Mr. Darby quotes this passage “-i.e., of his pamphlet. I have profited by his call: and what is the result? Why that, having filled up all his blanks by the omitted Scriptures, the position is more adverse to the Editor than when by Mr. Darby they were left blanks. The Editor might have guessed, what is now so evident, that they were so left because Mr. Darby was more anxious to seize upon the real point in question, and so not to be diverted from his argument, than to do as I have done, formally point out the fallacies of the passage from which he was quoting.
That I may not be obliged to return to the subject again, I notice another extraordinary passage at page 43 of this pamphlet. The Editor says, “It is by no mystic, no hidden, light that the Spirit leads and guides [most true]: it is by the plain letter of the law; it is by the Holy Scripture, which contains all things needful for life and salvation.” If there is any sense at all in this latter clause (for “the plain letter of the law” is but a part of Scripture, and is included in it), it is the presentation of two distinct and opposite propositions, and then assuming them to be identical. By this means “the plain letter of the law” and “Holy Scripture” are made to be terms coincident. It is one of the commonest fallacies in reasoning; but I do not follow out the consequences, and I notice it here only to show how little dependence is to be placed on the unexamined Scriptures of the Editor, and the arguments he uses.
It is not my business to defend Mr. Darby, but to examine how the Editor of the Record meets, and attempts to refute, the Scriptures and the arguments which Mr. Darby adduces. The Editor may not know him: but those who do, will think him the last man to be suspected of evading the force of Scripture, when it is brought before him, or of reasoning on it in an inconsequent manner. Whatever else the “Brethren” are accustomed to—and they are accustomed to abuse and misrepresentation of every kind—they are not yet accustomed to the neglect of Scripture, nor to the inaccurate quotation of Scripture; nor, I trust, to refuse to bow to the authority of Scripture when it is presented.
At page 13 of his pamphlet, the Editor makes a great parade about the different senses in which the particular term “law” is used in Scripture, and concludes by saying, “Now all this, which is familiar enough to most careful students of the New Testament, Mr. Darby altogether loses sight of.” In such an assertion, this writer must have calculated largely on the ignorance, or prejudice, or credulity of his readers. The knowledge which he ascribes to “careful students of the New Testament,” is that which may be possessed by every child that reads it with an ordinary degree of attention. But his object in introducing it is simply mystification. And this mystification is applied (at page 45) with a view to neutralize the whole of the apostle's reasoning on the subject of the law in the Epistle to the Gal. 1 grant that it is an awkward epistle for a man holding such views as the Editor. But does he expect one who has the least respect for the word of God, and who believes in its inspiration, will accept such a summary as he has given of this epistle? His “careful students,” bewildered by his vaporing about the different senses of the word “law,” perhaps may; but no believer, who has any just appreciation of the word of God, will. This is his abstract: “He [i.e., the apostle] there showed that he that has Christ has all that he needs—he finds obedience in Him, righteousness in Him. Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength. The apostle further shows that anything added to Christ is a denial of Christ's sufficiency; that you cannot have both the shadow and the substance; that circumcision is nothing in Christ; that in Him we are complete, and have but to hold fast by Him.” This passage, which is eked out by a quotation from Isaiah, presents absolutely all that the Editor of the Record professes to see in this wonderful epistle, which so elaborately refutes all that in this matter the Record is teaching. One would have thought there was no great difficulty in determining the meaning of the term “law” in such passages as the following: “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” “That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident.” “The law is not of faith.” “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.” “The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul.” “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,” with many others equally clear that might have been quoted from this very epistle. It is most striking and instructive to observe how, at every point in the Editor's argument, there is the same careful, absolute avoidance of the words of Scripture. But I commend my readers to the study of the epistle itself. I have known more than one Church of England person brought into the liberty of the Gospel by its perusal when everything else had failed.
In the order of the pamphlet we come next to a series of quotations from Mr. Darby's writings, at the close of which the Editor says, “We have chosen at some trouble to ourselves [he had not to go far to collect his passages] to let Mr. Darby speak for himself.” I have read these quotations, both here and in their connections, and disjointed and fragmentary as they necessarily are, as exhibited in pages 14 to 18 in this pamphlet-giving, for the most part, but heads of arguments, which, in their place, are carefully argued out from Scripture, I still think them the redeeming feature in the Editor's work, and incomparably more fitted to help earnest and anxious souls than anything else in this controversy which he has written. I therefore cordially thank him for having done this unwitting service to the truth. These quotations will go forth with his book, and souls that are exercised about subjection to the divine word, will find in them, fragmentary as they are, that which will meet a want and a craving within, which, if it does not lead to the study of the tractates from which they are selected, will, in the mercy of the Lord, lead to a study of the Scriptures, of which they will be felt to be the faint though faithful echo.
There is one quotation so peculiar—not from its inaccuracy—that I must beg my reader's attention for a moment to it. In quoting it, the Editor says, in brackets, “the capitals are Mr. Darby's;” and so, in truth, I must confess they are. Here they are: “I AM NOT IN THE FLESH.” But this is only a passage of Scripture with a change of pronoun. Did the Editor never read the words in Rom. 8:88So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:8), “But YE ARE NOT IN THE FLESH?” And just before, “They that ARE IN THE FLESH cannot please God?” And the converse of this, “WHEN YE WERE IN THE FLESH?” But what does this mean, that a Christian writer should be so blinded by his unscriptural system, as to hold up a passage of Scripture when printed in capitals as a statement of error? But it tells a tale. It shows that in his system the Editor has no place either for the consistency of the law or the liberty of grace.
I very earnestly commend to all Christians these works, the titles of which I give below. They belong to no sect. They are the just inheritance of every Christian of every name. Truth disdains a sectarian garb; though the Editor of the Record has attempted to brand these Scriptural expositions of a Scripture doctrine with an opprobrious name, instead of answering them, as he was bound to do, from the word of God.
It is difficult to repress a feeling of indignation when the professed teachers of others so act as to compel the application of the words of the Lord, “Ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering ye hindered.”
I reserve for a future communication the consideration of the remaining points in this pamphlet. In the meantime, and at all times, may God give His people “the meekness of wisdom,” and a supreme regard for His holy word!
Yours faithfully, Presbus